References
Befani, B., and O’Donnell, M. 2016. Choosing appropriate evaluation methods tool. London: Bond. Retrieved from https://www.bond.org.uk/resources/evaluation-methods-tool. Accessed 20 Feb 2019.
Befani, B. 2016. Pathways to change: Evaluating development interventions with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Pathways to Change: Evaluating Development Interventions with QCA, report of Expertgruppen för Biståndsanalys (EBA). Retrieved from http://eba.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/QCA_BarbaraBefani-201605.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2019.
Chelimsky, E., and W.R. Shadish. 1997. Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dahler-Larsen, P. 2012. The evaluation society. Stanford: Standford University Press.
Holvoet, N., D. Van Esbroeck, L. Inberg, L. Popelier, B. Peeters, and E. Verhofstadt. 2018. To evaluate or not: Evaluability study of 40 interventions of Belgian development cooperation. Evaluation and Program Planning 67: 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.12.005.
OECD-DAC. 2002. Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management. Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf.
Olsen, W. 2019. Bridging to action requires mixed methods, not only randomised control trials. European Journal of Development Research. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-019-00199-2.
Pattyn, V., A. Molenveld, and B. Befani. 2019. Qualitative comparative analysis as an evaluation tool. American Journal of Evaluation 40(1): 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214017710502.
Pattyn, V., and S. Verweij. 2014. Beleidsevaluaties tussen methode en praktijk: Naar een meer realistische evaluatie benadering. Bestuur en Beleid. Tijdschrift voor Bestuurskunde en Bestuursrecht 8 (4): 260–267.
Pawson, R., and N. Tilley. 1997. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
Ragin, C. 1987. The comparative method. Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. London: University of California Press.
Ragin, C. 2000. Fuzzy set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rihoux, B., and C. Ragin. 2009. Configurational comparative methods. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sager, F., and C. Andereggen. 2012. Dealing with complex causality in realist synthesis: The promise of qualitative comparative analysis. American Journal of Evaluation 33 (1): 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214011411574.
Stern, E., Stame, N., Mayne, J., Forss, K., Davies, R., and Befani, B. 2012. Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations. Department for International Development, (February 2011), 1–127. Retrieved from http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/design-method-impact-eval.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2019.
Szanyi, M., T. Azzam, and M. Galen. 2012. Research on evaluation: A needs assessment. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 27 (1): 39–64.
van der Knaap, P. 2004. Theory-based evaluation and learning: Possibilities and challenges. Evaluation 10 (1): 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389004042328.
Vedung, E. 1997. Public policy and program evaluation. Piscataway: Transaction.
Weiss, C.H. 1977. Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis 3: 531–545. https://doi.org/10.2307/42783234.
Weiss, C.H. 1993. Where politics and evaluation research meet. American Journal of Evaluation 14 (1): 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409301400119.
Wildavsky, A. 1987. Speaking truth to power: Art and craft of policy analysis. London: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351488471.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pattyn, V. Towards Appropriate Impact Evaluation Methods. Eur J Dev Res 31, 174–179 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-019-00202-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-019-00202-w